Economic valuation of sustainable land management strategies · Statuskonferenz Berlin, 17. – 19.4. 2013 Sandra Rajmis, Jesko Hirschfeld 2 Introduction Aims of the project Research

Gefördert durch

Economic valuation of sustainable land management strategies

“Interdependencies between Land use and Climate Change –

Strategies for a sustainable land use management in Germany” CC-LandStraD, Module A

Sandra Rajmis & Jesko Hirschfeld IÖW - Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung

Statuskonferenz Berlin, 17. – 19.4. 2013

2 Sandra Rajmis, Jesko Hirschfeld

Introduction

Aims of the project

Research approach: Ecosystem Services

Preliminary results

Content


CC-LandStraD: Research project within the funding

programme “Sustainable Land Management” of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)

Module A: “Interactions between land management, climate change and ecosystem services”

Part of the BMBF framework programme “Research for Sustainable Development” (FONA)

Introduction


Changes in land use have effects on GHG-emissions,

nutrient fluxes, biodiversity, etc.

Agriculture has to adapt to climate change

Climate mitigation and adaptation has ecological and economic effects

Value of agricultural landscapes often underestimated because of insufficient market prices

Introduction


Economic valuation of sustainable land use strategies which are adjusted to climate change Integration of results from the subprojects (model RAUMIS,

resolution on county level)

Economic valuation of further value dimensions e.g. with representative survey z.B. aesthetic landscapes for recreation, biodiversity,

land consumption

Scope of the project: Germany plus two focus regions

Comparison of alternative land use options

Provision of information for political decisions

Aims of the project


Research approach I – Conceptual frame

Ecosystem Services

Regulating

Supporting

Provisioning Cultural


Cost-benefit analysis and economic valuation

Research approach II – Cost-benefit analysis

Model results, Market prices

Provisioning services

Survey WTP study

Cultural services

Regulating services

Observed data, calculations


Status of the subproject

Expert monitoring of national and regional stakeholder workshops (September 2012)

Focus group discussions (November 2012)

Development of questionnaire for valuation of sustainable land use options (May 2011 - Januar 2013)

Pretest finished (February 2013)

Revision of questionnaire for main study (March/April 2013)

Coopertion with BMBF-Projekt „Sustainable Landmanagement in the North German lowlands“(NaLaMa-nT part of Modul B)


Representative online survey - Structure Introduction to land use

Choice Experiment: Valuation of land management options via choice of bundles of preferred landscape characteristics (selected ecosystem services affected by potential land use measures)

Non-monetary valuation of landscape images

Perception and attitudes towards biodiversity and agriculture

Acceptance/refusal of the landscape characteristics and perceived values, ethical reasoning

Recreation habits

Demographic characteristics


Representative online survey

Survey period: March to April 2013

N = 10.000 Interviews expected (joint project)

N = 3.000 Interviews IÖW subsample (27,000 choice observations)

Average length per interview: 28 minutes

11% drop outs; 89% finished the questionniare completely


Sample IÖW 1

Sample IÖW 2

Sample TU 1

Sample TU 2

Sample vTI 1

Sample vTI 2

Core attribute 1 X X X X X X

Core attribute 2 X X X X X X

Flexible Att 1 X X X






Price X X X X X X

Survey design


Sample IÖW 1

Sample IÖW 2

Sample TU 1

Sample TU 2

Sample vTI 1

Sample vTI 2

Core attribute 1 Share of forest Share of forest Share of forest Share of forest Share of forest Share of forest

Core attribute 2 Field size and

size of forested areas

Field size and size of forested

areas


areas


areas


areas


areas

Flexible Att 1 Biodiversity

within agricultural land

Quality of lakes and rivers Forests with

under storey

Flexible Att 2 Share of maize Share of

meadows and grazing land

Share of conifer trees

Flexible Att 3 Share of

meadows and grazing land

Share of broadleaf trees Age of forest

Flexible Att 4 Agricultural land with high nature

value Biodiversity in

landcapes Biodiversity within forest

Flexible Att 5 Share of hedges Mixed orchards Not used forest areas

Flexible Att 6 Land consumption Animals on

meadows Share of alien trees

Price X X X X X X

Survey design


doppelt so groß

25% Wiesen und Weiden

10 €

max. 70% der Ackerfläche

10% niedriger 10% höher

halb so groß

wie heute

wie heute

wie heute

wie heute

wie heute

0 € 80 €

leicht erhöhen (85 Punkte)

max. 30% der Ackerfläche

50% Wiesen und Weiden

Survey design – Choice set example

deutlich erhöhen (105 Punkte)


First results


Results: preferences for landscape

Attribute [Landscape characteristic/ ecosystem service]

Level [Quality of provided ecosystem service]

Willingness to pay [€/year/ person]

Share of forest 1.) 10 % lower 2.) as today 3.) 10 % higher

80,28 ***

Biodiversity within agricultural land

1.) as today 2.) increase slightly (85 points) 3.) increase strongly (105 points)

25,76 ***

Share of maize

1.) as today 2.) 30% of arable land 3.) 70% of arable land

- 32,10 ***

*** p = 0,01; (N=503 interviews; sample IÖW 1; 4527 observations) preliminary results – not to be quoted !

Base model 1


Attitudes towards agriculture

Item

I 1: Today‘s agriculture leads to degradation of habitats, wildlife and plant species.

I 2: Fertilizers and crop pestizides decrease soil fertility and product quality.

I 3: To applicate chemicals in agriculture is to act against nature.

I 4: The contamination of groundwater by fertilizers is worse than people want to have it true.

I 5: In media coverage, agriculture is overstated as causer of environmental problems.

I 6: Farmers are the best nature conservationists, even if they make sometimes mistakes.

I 7: Fertilizers and crop pestizides do not have any effects. They increase product quality.

I 8: Application of chemicals in agriculture makes sense if the benefits exceed the costs.



Item Influence on attributes ..


Field size and size of forested areas, share of hedges at field margins and margins of grasslands, land consumption, agricultural areas with high nature value

I 2: Fertilizers and crop pestizides decrease soil fertility and product quality.

Field size and size of forested areas, share of hedges at field margins and margins of grasslands, land consumption

I 3: To applicate chemicals in agriculture is to act against nature.

Share of hedges at field margins and margins of grasslands

I 4: The contamination of groundwater by fertilizers is worse than people want to have it true.

Share of hedges at field margins and margins of grasslands, land consumption, agricultural areas with high nature value

I 5: In media coverage, agriculture is overstated as causer of environmental problems.

Land consumption, agricultural areas with high nature value

I 6: Farmers are the best nature conservationists, even if they make sometimes mistakes.

Agricultural areas with high nature value, land consumption

I 7: Fertilizers and crop pestizides do not have any effects. They increase product quality.

Share of forest and agricutural land, agricultural areas with high nature value, land consumption

I 8: Application of chemicals in agriculture makes sense if the benefits exceed the costs.

Share of forest and agricutural land, field size and size of forested areas, agricultural areas with high nature value, land consumption

Influence of attitudes on preferences and willingness to pay

preliminary results – not to be quoted !



Item Influence on attributes ..


• Field size and size of forested areas, • Share of hedges at field and grassland margins, • Land consumption, • Agricultural areas with high nature value

Influence of attitudes on preferences and willingness to pay

The stronger respondents agree to this item the higher probability of preference for the attributes … • share of hedges at field margins and margins of grasslands, • and agricultural areas with high nature value WTP for biodiversity is higher than in base model: • Hedges - interacting item 8,36 € • High nature value - interacting item 9,95 €

(Results for N=497 Interviews; 4473 observations) preliminary results – not to be quoted !


Conclusion Economic valuation of land management strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation ...

High potential for identification of land use options which are preferred/accepted by the people

Reveals benefits and costs of an increase or decrease in ecosystem service qualities

Provides information for political decision makers in terms of preferred land use options and affected ecosystem services

Gefördert durch

Thank you! Dr. Sandra Rajmis

Dr. Jesko Hirschfeld IÖW – Institut für ökologische

Wirtschaftsforschung, Berlin

[email protected]

18. April 2013 Foto: Juliane Specht

Publications related to project : Rajmis, S., Hirschfeld, J., Fick, J., Gömann, H. (2012): CC-LandStraD: Wechselwirkungen zwischen Landnutzung und Klimawandel – Teilprojekt Ökosystemdienstleistungen der

landwirtschaftlich genutzten Landschaft und Ansätze zur ökonomischen Bewertung. In: Korn, H., Feit, U., Schliep, R. (Red.); Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Hrsg.) Biodiversität und Klima - Vernetzung der Akteure in Deutschland VIII - Ergebnisse und Dokumentation des 8. Workshops. BfN-Skripten 307, Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 99-102.

Schaller, M., Beierkuhnlein, C., Rajmis, S., Schmidt Th., Nitsch H., Liess, M., Kattwinkel, M., Settele, J. (2012): Auswirkungen auf landwirtschaftlich genutzte Lebensräume. In: Mosbrugger, V., Brasseur, G., Schaller, M. und Stribrny, B. (Hrsg.) Klimawandel und Biodiversität - Folgen für Deutschland. WBG, Darmstadt, S. 222-259.

Documents

Economic valuation of sustainable land management strategies · Statuskonferenz Berlin, 17. – 19.4. 2013 Sandra Rajmis, Jesko Hirschfeld 2 Introduction Aims of the project Research